To talk of a consolidated democracy is a myth. How far do you agree Essay

To talk of a consolidated democracy is a myth. How far do you agree with this statement - Essay Example The research on the practical implications and needs of democracy – as developed in the context of this paper – has led to the assumption that the existence of a consolidated democracy is not feasible; in fact, consolidated democracy should be rather considered as a myth. The above argument is justified in this paper by referring to the forms of democracy in a series of Mediterranean states – France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta. The political decisions developed by the governments of these countries in the context of democracy are presented and analyzed using a series of relevant examples. The comparison of these practices with those of USA, another country where democracy has been promoted, has verified the assumption that consolidated democracy should be characterized as a myth; democracy, as introduced in countries worldwide, is a political system incorporating elements of democratic behaviour and values which have been combined with the values and ethics of various political teams in order for specific political interests to be promoted. 2. Democracy – consolidated democracy, characteristics and forms In order to understand the reasons for the non-feasibility of consolidated democracy it would be necessary to refer primarily to the rules and the ethics of democracy as a theoretical framework. Then the concept of consolidated democracy would be explained and analyzed making clear the reasons for which the specific political system is not applicable – in practical terms. 2.1. Theories on democracy Through the decades, different approaches have been used by theorists in order to explain the context and the priorities of democracy as a political system which should be promoted in all countries worldwide ensuring equality and fairness for all people – reference is made to the initial aims of democracy, as included in the theoretical framework of the specific political system. In accordance with Harrison (1995) the k ey rule of democracy would be summarized as follows: ‘the citizen body as a whole meets to decide what to do’ (Harrison 14) – referring to a practice related to the Athenian democracy. On the other hand, Lane & Ersson (2003) notes that a distinction should be made between real democracy (i.e. real life democracy) and the ideal democracy, a concept related to justice (Lane & Ersson 2003). It is explained that the potential existence of democracy in real life can be explored using two important questions: ‘a) what are the conditions for democratic stability and b) what are the outcomes of a democratic regime? (Lane & Ersson 24). It is made clear that the use of the above two questions is helpful in order to realize why democracy is quite difficult to be developed in real life; there can be no ideal social conditions – social turbulences are likely to appear even in countries which social rights and ethics are highly promoted, i.e. social stability cann ot exist – at least not for a long time; on the other hand, the benefits of a democratic regime are quite difficult to be set as a priority by governments worldwide; in this context, it is quite unlikely that the public interest is set above all interests even in countries where the interests of citizens are of high importance for the political decisions. A similar approach can be identified in the